3 ms·

Disagree, it is content. The Japanese anime (referenced) is specifically made to be marketed and sold.

by mlrtime 1y ago

qlm 1y ago
The involvement of money does not preclude a work from being considered art. Your claim is cynical and ahistorical.
- nickthegreek 1y ago
  it also doesn’t preclude it from being content.
  - estearum 1y ago
    I don't think any supposes it does. They're arguing that the word choice implies something about the speaker's value system and the place that art or human culture has in it.
  - qlm 1y ago
    Well, yes, but I didn’t really think that needed to be said.
estearum 1y ago
Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often against their own preferences. That's "content".
  - richardfulop 1y ago
    Art is not an objective definition, it is the subjective experience of the observer. Content is a format.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Is that what they tell you when you’re standing in the gallery with a checkbook? Or in the boardroom with a signature? No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful) 99.99999% of the time. Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or even broad categories of art — that weren’t made to be sold and that you have personally seen?
    - ricardobeat 1y ago
      I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold; but that is not the main motivation behind making the art, where commercial "art" - advertising, mainstream cinema, pop music, most art galleries, anime, 80% of what you see in arts and crafts fairs, pieces in IKEA - is created with profit as the main motive. Going back to the origin of this, stating that Ghibli style videos generated with SORA (which the OP initially called "content") are equivalent to Studio Ghibli movies because they are both "art made to be sold" would be wild. A film like Spirited Away took over 1 million hours of work, if making money was the main goal it would have never happened.
      - estearum 1y ago
        > Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience. It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold. I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is. What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.
- Kiro 1y ago
  I presume "by virtue of you seeing it" includes other conditions or I don't understand how you can claim such a thing.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Where exactly have you seen art that wasn’t made to be sold? Be specific.
    - Kiro 1y ago
      Friends, family, coworkers, my own, random posts online, everywhere.
      - estearum 1y ago
        Ah yes, the very normal activity of showing your coworkers your hobbyist art! Is this happening a couple dozen times per day?
        fragmede 1y ago
        Via Instagram, while they're showing off pictures of their kids and their hobbies... yes? Do you show only your coworkers, what, system diagrams of work things making the between work times still also about work? Different places have different cultures, apparently your coworkers aren't to know anything about you beyond what's necessary for them to work with you, but across the whole world, not everywhere is like that, and it seems unnecessary to state that you don't live in such a place in that way.
        Kiro 1y ago
        It happens quite often, yes. They are concept artists and designers but they share their own stuff. And just now I opened up Discord and skimmed through some art, pixel art and drawings channels in the many servers I'm in and saw a lot of art that I doubt anyone is trying to sell. People just love to share their creations.

Disagree, it is content. The Japanese anime (referenced) is specifically made to be marketed and sold.

qlm 1y ago

The involvement of money does not preclude a work from being considered art. Your claim is cynical and ahistorical.

nickthegreek 1y ago
it also doesn’t preclude it from being content.
- estearum 1y ago
  I don't think any supposes it does. They're arguing that the word choice implies something about the speaker's value system and the place that art or human culture has in it.
- qlm 1y ago
  Well, yes, but I didn’t really think that needed to be said.

estearum 1y ago

Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

ricardobeat 1y ago
Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often against their own preferences. That's "content".
- richardfulop 1y ago
  Art is not an objective definition, it is the subjective experience of the observer. Content is a format.
- estearum 1y ago
  Is that what they tell you when you’re standing in the gallery with a checkbook? Or in the boardroom with a signature? No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful) 99.99999% of the time. Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or even broad categories of art — that weren’t made to be sold and that you have personally seen?
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold; but that is not the main motivation behind making the art, where commercial "art" - advertising, mainstream cinema, pop music, most art galleries, anime, 80% of what you see in arts and crafts fairs, pieces in IKEA - is created with profit as the main motive. Going back to the origin of this, stating that Ghibli style videos generated with SORA (which the OP initially called "content") are equivalent to Studio Ghibli movies because they are both "art made to be sold" would be wild. A film like Spirited Away took over 1 million hours of work, if making money was the main goal it would have never happened.
    - estearum 1y ago
      > Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience. It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold. I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is. What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.
Kiro 1y ago
I presume "by virtue of you seeing it" includes other conditions or I don't understand how you can claim such a thing.
- estearum 1y ago
  Where exactly have you seen art that wasn’t made to be sold? Be specific.
  - Kiro 1y ago
    Friends, family, coworkers, my own, random posts online, everywhere.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Ah yes, the very normal activity of showing your coworkers your hobbyist art! Is this happening a couple dozen times per day?
      - fragmede 1y ago
        Via Instagram, while they're showing off pictures of their kids and their hobbies... yes? Do you show only your coworkers, what, system diagrams of work things making the between work times still also about work? Different places have different cultures, apparently your coworkers aren't to know anything about you beyond what's necessary for them to work with you, but across the whole world, not everywhere is like that, and it seems unnecessary to state that you don't live in such a place in that way.
      - Kiro 1y ago
        It happens quite often, yes. They are concept artists and designers but they share their own stuff. And just now I opened up Discord and skimmed through some art, pixel art and drawings channels in the many servers I'm in and saw a lot of art that I doubt anyone is trying to sell. People just love to share their creations.